Materialism

[junglelord]

As to what good is knowing something if you can't prove it to someone else, why do you need to prove it to someone else? Knowledge is knowledge.

Thats what I was thinking. I cannot explain what I know to many people, let alone prove it to others. Yet there are those that do know and understand, so thats fine with me. I believe that only to those that come to drink should you offer the water in many respects. I do not share my own cup, but rather ask of those who come, to drink anew. In this way living water or knowledge can be exchanged.

One may ask, what is knowledge and rightly so. Is all knowledge transferable? Is personal knowledge any less valid? The knowledge of a vision quest for example, cannot be transferred. It is personal, therefore totally valid and is the most essential knowledge to the person who sees the vision. MMMMM> Living Knowledge, how interesting for a materialism thought.

[bdw000]

Hey Greycloud:
I do not deny that your "know used in place of belief" principle also operates in common usage. It is part of the problem I am talking about (trying to beef up an argument when no real "beef" is to be had).

To me 'belief' is shorthand for 'my current understanding is...

I think you are absolutely right that this is a common usage of the word, among friends who are not trying to grind axes on each other. But in the context of arguments where both sides are trying to "win" an argument at all costs (instead of just finding out what the answer is), that is not what I see going on.

The problem is that "belief" also has this HUGE other side to it: the assumption of "correctness" or "truth" or "reality" is unavoidably bound up with the word "belief." No one would ever intentionally "believe" something that is not true, so the word "belief" is used in reverse, to sort of implicitly try to prove that what is being said is true because someone "believes" it. "No one would believe something that is not true; I believe X, therefore X must be true." This is a caricature of logic, but it is my opinion that it is used by many people in all sorts of arguments all the time. This is usually how "belief" is used in matters that simply cannot be proven one way or the other: religion and politics being famous examples.

If I say that I believe that Homer's Iliad is one of the greatest books ever written, I mean just that.

Perfect example of what I am saying: you are using it in the context of stating an opinion. You would never say "I believe that the Iliad is a book" because that is a matter of FACT. I have no problem at all when people use the word belief when expressing an opinion. It is when they try to beef up their opinions into a winning argument that I complain. In technical debates where opinions are irrelevant, I say "belief" is thrown in with the hope that some reader or listener will accidentally assume the factual nature of the word (see above paragraph).

Anyway, I have made my point. I think it is obvious when the word "belief" is being abused, and I think it is also obvious that many people are also aware of this. Any thoughtful person whose intent is to get at the truth will not be swayed but the (sole) use of the word "belief," so why use it in serious debates if that is all you've got? If you have evidence, state it. If you don't, avoid the use of the word "belief."

Let's face it: in any serious debate what either side "believes" is irrelevant. The word may be useful in any number of discussions, but I just don't see how it is helpful in technical debates. That is all I am saying.

And since everything that I am saying is just a matter of opinion, I guess I will fail to sway you to my side, Greycloud

[Grey Cloud]

And since everything that I am saying is just a matter of opinion, I guess I will fail to sway you to my side, Greycloud

Au contraire, bdw000. I now understand the differentiation you are making and I agree with it. I would go even further and say that people who, as you put it, use the word to beef up their arguement are also using an implicit or silent 'and how could I possibly be mistaken?' As in:
"I believe, and how could such a one as I possibly be mistaken, that Homer's Iliad is the greatest book ever written". This is one of the reasons why people get riled when their views are challenged. They take it as an insult to their intelligence and/or judgement.
The obvious counter to people who use 'believe' in this way is to ask them why they believe it; why do they think that; what leads them to this view etc. It still gets them riled but if you keep drilling down you will get to the point where they start ducking and diving because they don't have an answer. You, of course, have to know your stuff to do this.

[webolife]

I've been away for a bit, but interesting dialogue still going on here.
BDW, you still seem to be missing my main point. Let's suppose that all of the available evidence is "known" to all parties in a "debate". The debate continues because each person has a different perspective on that evidence. Some dump it together into a bigbang bag, others wrap it up with the electric universe or electromagnetic plasma currents, while others bind it with the rope-chains, and others flood it in the all-pervasive aether. Some see the c-rate as a multidimensional time parameter, others as limiting light speed, and others [myself] see it as a conceptual distortion of instantaneous light. As StevenO pointed out, materialism is an assumption that may or may not be correct. I "believe" the philosophy of materialism is incorrect, and my philosophy of the universe ensues. Others, such as Alton and Plasmatic, are completely immersed in that belief system [but do not seem to acknowledge this], and claim to hold only to ubiquitous facts, or definable objects, stating that this is "all there is" to the universe. The debate also continues because NOT all of the evidence IS known, therefore the theory with the best predictive power wrt yet to be discovered "facts" is being sought. That theory may be a synesthesia, as JL likes to term, or not, of several competing viewpoints... meanwhile each person "believes" his or her own perspective is the best one, or else he/she would modify it. Hence we remain in dialogue, driven [I say by our "beliefs"] to understand more and more, but also by our interdependence upon each other to fill in concepts that may be lacking due to the limitation of our personal perspective.

[bdw000]

I've been away for a bit, but interesting dialogue still going on here.
BDW, you still seem to be missing my main point. Let's suppose that all of the available evidence is "known" to all parties in a "debate". The debate continues because each person has a different perspective on that evidence. Some dump it together into a bigbang bag, others wrap it up with the electric universe or electromagnetic plasma currents, while others bind it with the rope-chains, and others flood it in the all-pervasive aether. Some see the c-rate as a multidimensional time parameter, others as limiting light speed, and others [myself] see it as a conceptual distortion of instantaneous light. As StevenO pointed out, materialism is an assumption that may or may not be correct. I "believe" the philosophy of materialism is incorrect, and my philosophy of the universe ensues. Others, such as Alton and Plasmatic, are completely immersed in that belief system [but do not seem to acknowledge this], and claim to hold only to ubiquitous facts, or definable objects, stating that this is "all there is" to the universe. The debate also continues because NOT all of the evidence IS known, therefore the theory with the best predictive power wrt yet to be discovered "facts" is being sought. That theory may be a synesthesia, as JL likes to term, or not, of several competing viewpoints... meanwhile each person "believes" his or her own perspective is the best one, or else he/she would modify it. Hence we remain in dialogue, driven [I say by our "beliefs"] to understand more and more, but also by our interdependence upon each other to fill in concepts that may be lacking due to the limitation of our personal perspective.

And you fail to hear anything that I have said

My OPINION (yes I admit that) is simply that using the word "believe" is a mistake. It doesn't have to be theoretically, but in practice it is.

If you disagree, fine.

I just don't understand why anyone would "believe" anything at all if they did not actually KNOW that it was true. Why bother? What is the point? What could you possibly gain from that? Why not believe that Jesus died for your sins? Why not?

I am not arguing for or against materialism here since proof, just as for or against "god," seems to be impossible (in my opinion).

[Grey Cloud]

Hi bdw000,
I believe that you are still missing the point. The word 'believe' can be used as shorthand for 'at this present moment my understanding of the situation is...'. When, say, a boxer gets into the ring he believes he is going to win, based upon his assessment of his own ability and on his assessment of his opponents ability. He wont 'know' until the referee holds up one or the others hand (or if he wakes up in the hospital he will know he came second).
I believe you will respond to this post, but I don't know.

I used to believe in Santa, based upon empirical evidence. Then I discovered it was just a scam perpetrated by my materialistic parents.

[bdw000]

Hey Greycloud.

We've already been through this.

What you say is of course correct.

As I said before, for all sorts of friendly discussions in daily life, that is a good use of the word.

Remember that my main point is that the word "believe" just isn't appropriate for technical discussions, especially ones that involve metaphysical claims about the nature of the whole universe. This idea sort of gets lost sometimes in my rambling replies, but it is my main point.

I like to say (to myself mostly): "when you look to the left, you can't see to the right." When you "believe" that the universe is so-and-so, and you are wrong (historically the most common state of affairs when in fact you do not "know" ) it seems to me that there is a very good chance that you will not SEE the way that it actually is. Just my opinion.

Anyway Web, what I am saying obviously applies to so-called materialists. I am not targeting you specifically, or materialists, or anyone. It is the use of the word that is my target.

Anyway, time for me to shut up.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi bdw000,
I see my belief was well founded!
You wrote:

... my main point is that the word "believe" just isn't appropriate for technical discussions, especially ones that involve metaphysical claims about the nature of the whole universe

I wrote:

The word 'believe' can be used as shorthand for 'at this present moment my understanding of the situation is...'.

I feel that this still apllies to technical/academic/scholarly discussion. As far as discussions about the whole Universe then any statement made can only be a matter of belief used in this sense. Nobody 'knows' the whole Universe, so nobody can really 'know' anything about the whole. Metaphysics per se is a totally different kettle of fish - it is possible to 'know' but it is, I believe, impossible to impart that knowledge to another.

[StevenJay]

[...] it is possible to 'know' but it is, I believe, impossible to impart that knowledge to another.

Agreed! Due to its nature, a personal "knowing" can only be, initially, at least, shared and accepted or rejected as a belief.

[webolife]

YES, StevenJay... whom you believe is very important. In this regard I reiterate my point that we must be open to listening to many different perspectives... in the world of science, not a single one of us is privy to the universal perspective that sees all truth in one glance.

[Plasmatic]

Ive been quite busy for an extended period of time and havent been able to respond for a bit:

OK how about:
Faith: Reliance upon a person, systematic philosophy, or invisible process to explain ubiquitous facts.
Belief: Intellectual assent to an idea or concept not ubiquitously present in the factual observations.

Will these work for us... if not I'll try something else, so we can continue our fun!

Web Can I assume you were tounge in cheek here. I cant make any sense out of it.

For "faith" It seems that "reliance" is your main point,but the very nature of ubiquitous facts are that they are available to everyone in all contexts. I dont see how "reliance could fit in this context.
For "belief",you are basically defining any concept that is derived from specific/non-ubiquitous context. In other words not available at all times to all observers[i.e.requires special/specific knowledge].

I think your recent words may reveal what you really think "faith" means in a more relevent manner.

But I think you are still dismissing the importance of my underlying premise... which is that everyone, including every scientist, and every scientific theory, bases their conclusions on an underlying premise that essentially cannot be proven, which I call your faith base.........................
.
Generally I define perspective, or viewpoint, in the same terms as faith or belief, a faith base.

I ask you,what are the reasons you consider every persons "perspective" to be "unprovable" and therefore worthy of the term "faith"?

[Plasmatic]

Also:

There is no real objectivity, except when a person is seeing from the absolute perspective of the Truth.

What do you mean? How does one accomplish this? Does your recent comment :

in the world of science, not a single one of us is privy to the universal perspective that sees all truth in one glance.

refer to the aforementioned "perspective"?

[webolife]

Plasmatic,
Thank you for your replies and questions. I too have been "gone" for a couple weeks, so sorry for this delayed response. No, I am not being tongue in cheek, at least not intentionally. Let me try a different tack on this discussion... here are examples of some statements one might find on this forum or in any particular scientific discussion:
1. Gravitation is a universal and/or unifying phenomenon.
2. Electromagnetic forces are a universal unifying phenomenon.
3. Gravitation and electromagnetism are essentially different manifestations of a universal force field.
4. Electrical and plasmic principles operate at all scales in the universe.
5. General relativity is the best theory currently available for understanding the workings of the universe. And its negative: GR is not the best theory for understanding...
6. EU and PC are the best theories currently available for understanding the workings of the universe. And the negative: EU/PC is not the best theory for understanding...
7. Redshift is a distance/speed correlation of starlight, based on the motion of stars and analogous to a Doppler shift in acoustics [a la Hubble, et. al.].
8. Redshift of starlight is an intrinsic attribute of stars derived from the electrical stresses and their stage of formation [ala Arp, et.al.].
9. Causality precludes or excludes the possibility of a universal "beginning".
10. Causality does not preclude the possibility of a beginning.
11. Materialism, eg. that only matter and energy are of importance to understanding the working of the universe, is a limiting factor in science.
12. Materialism excludes the existence of spiritual or non-material "causative" factors in the universe, and is ultimately an inadequate basis for scientific pursuit.
13. There is no such thing as universal truth, each person's truth is determined by his/her perspective.
14. There is universal truth, but each person's perspective on it is limited, therefore each person's conclusions based on the evidence he/she observes will be predisposed, colored, or determined by his/her perspective.
15. Beliefs matter in determining the extent to which a person can understand what he/she observes in the universe.
16. Beliefs don't matter in determining the extent to which a person can understand what he/she observes.
17. If a belief is backed by much evidence/observation, it is no longer a belief.
18. Even if a belief is backed by much evidence, it is still essentially a belief.
Do you care to "bite" on any of these statements? With which, if any, do you concur?
I won't play games here... If any of these statements, or even parts of these statements, drive the conclusions you reach in the pursuit of knowledge, then you have the answer to your questions. Acknowledging an underlying premise does not invalidate one's conclusions, but serves to help others understand the conclusions; at the same time, understanding another's assumptions enables us to see from another's perspective, thus [at least potentially] expanding the limits of our knowledge due to our own finite perspective. For me, this is what being an open-minded person, what being an honest scientist, is all about. (And Bdw, this is why I still insist that the word "believe" is essential to proper science.)

[altonhare]

Belief: I claim X but can imagine that which would convince me against it.
Faith: I claim X but cannot imagine anything that would convince me against it.

[webolife]

OK, Altonhare, I'll subscribe to that for the purposes of fruitful discussion.
I don't hold to that distinction tightly in daily speech and conduct, but for this forum and thread it seems reasonable.